News Is Obama's Hesitation on Troop Surge in Afghanistan Justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pattonias
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Decision
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the urgent need for a decisive military strategy in Afghanistan, emphasizing that indecision from the President is detrimental to both troop safety and U.S. foreign policy credibility. Participants argue that commanders on the ground have developed plans that require either reinforcements or a clear withdrawal strategy, but the President's delay in making a decision is seen as politically motivated rather than strategic. The complexity of the Afghan conflict is highlighted, with concerns that simplistic solutions could exacerbate the situation. There is a call for the President to either provide the necessary resources for military action or to clearly outline an alternative approach. Ultimately, the need for decisive leadership in a complicated geopolitical landscape is underscored.
  • #51
OmCheeto said:
We have ex-presidents at the forum? Oh my. I've better watch who I bad mouth in the future. :rolleyes:

I doubt we have any former Presidents (Carter is a possible though). I do however believe there are some people with military or defense experience with us. My guess is that many people on PF are also very well-read and significantly more intelligent than our elected and apppointed leaders.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
mheslep said:
Please, what a load of crap. The last thing we need now is some other media source going blindly behind some personality, when they can't be bothered to do their homework:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/08/09/iraq_powell/

Who really knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Oh, let's ask the http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2009/09/colin-powell-no-surge-in-afghanistan.html" . I've never heard of them before.

Sunday, September 27, 2009
Colin Powell: "No surge in Afghanistan"

"... The competing advice and concerns fuel a pivotal struggle to shape the president’s thinking about a war that he inherited but may come to define his tenure. Among the most important outside voices has been that of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired four-star Army general, who visited Mr. Obama in the Oval Office this month and expressed skepticism that more troops would guarantee success. According to people briefed on the discussion, Mr. Powell reminded the president of his longstanding view that military missions should be clearly defined.

Mr. Powell is one of the three people outside the administration, along with Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Jack Reed, considered by White House aides to be most influential in this current debate. All have expressed varying degrees of doubt about the wisdom of sending more forces to Afghanistan..."

Never mind! No surge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
WhoWee said:
Heroin has killed (or ruined the lives of) more people than the terrorists we are seeking have to date - do I need to find links to support my claim that heroin is bad?

QUOTE]

The fields in question are poppy fields not heroin fields(granted heroin can be made from the poppy plants but it isn't always the case), are you against all opiates or just naturally occurring ones? I don't understand the amount of hipocracy involved in this "war on drugs", let's spend billions and billions of dollars to erradicate a plant that people in other countries are growing(I wonder how we would react if a foriegn country flew over the US and fire bombed our fields), then spend billions more to purchase synthetic opiates from the really big drug dealers such as phizer, etc;, why can't we purchase the poppy plants and use them for our "needed" drugs such as loratab, vicadin, oxycontin, demoral, morphine(none of those have ever been abused have they?) and on and on, instead of the need to get rid of a plant, which is then just replaced with a synthetic version, if opiates are really that bad let's get rid of all opiates even the ones made by the government protected phamacutical companies.
I recently read Lone Survivor about about a special forces team that got detected and damn near eliminated, as the title suggests there was only one survivor of the team. It was interesting to me that the subject of the book stated that he was raised to believe that drugs were for losers, but after he had been taken in by some afgan villagers and kept hidden from the enemy even with the threat that the village was going to pay severely for their aid of the american soldier, he was in terrible pain and the villagers brought in an opium paste and administered it to him, after which he said he was feeling great. He also stated after he was rescued that the morphine the rescuers had given him was not even close to as effective as the paste the villagers had given him. I would like to mention that the villagers that saved him were the same drug growers people have stated we need to get rid of, I bet Marcus Lattrell might disagree since he wouldn't even be alive today if not for some of those "evil" plant growers and he wouldn't of been as comfortable while he was there if not for the "evil" poppy plant.
Just like it is not the gun but the human using the gun that is to blame for abuses commited by a gun, its not the plant or drug that is to blame it is the person that is abusing them that is to blame.
 
  • #54
Jasongreat said:
WhoWee said:
Heroin has killed (or ruined the lives of) more people than the terrorists we are seeking have to date - do I need to find links to support my claim that heroin is bad?

QUOTE]

The fields in question are poppy fields not heroin fields(granted heroin can be made from the poppy plants but it isn't always the case), are you against all opiates or just naturally occurring ones? I don't understand the amount of hipocracy involved in this "war on drugs", let's spend billions and billions of dollars to erradicate a plant that people in other countries are growing(I wonder how we would react if a foriegn country flew over the US and fire bombed our fields), then spend billions more to purchase synthetic opiates from the really big drug dealers such as phizer, etc;, why can't we purchase the poppy plants and use them for our "needed" drugs such as loratab, vicadin, oxycontin, demoral, morphine(none of those have ever been abused have they?) and on and on, instead of the need to get rid of a plant, which is then just replaced with a synthetic version, if opiates are really that bad let's get rid of all opiates even the ones made by the government protected phamacutical companies.

You're going to use Marcus Lattrell to make a point for protection of poppy fields? Please reconsider.

Here's a link for you to learn more about the Poppy plant and alternative sources for medicine.
http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/poppy/dangers_of_poppies

This link offers some local perspective.
http://www.opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html
including this prediction
http://www.opioids.com/afghanistan/prediction.html

As I posted earlier, the problems of heroin and terrorists are intertwined - both problems need to be addressed.

President Obama is the Nobel Peace Prize winner and ran on "Change" and a renewed moral position for the US. I don't see how President Obama can possibly continue work with drug dealers to achieve his goals in Afghanistan. By the way, the CIA has been directed by and reporting to the Obama White House for 11 months and counting - this is Obama's CIA and Obama's War.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
OmCheeto said:
Who really knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Oh, let's ask the http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/2009/09/colin-powell-no-surge-in-afghanistan.html" . I've never heard of them before.
Never mind! No surge.
That's fine, maybe Powell's right (this time). But when Powell makes such a statement, he should also:
1. Admit he was completely wrong about the Iraq surge, and then explain why his new thinking is right this time.
2. Explain in detail why the current commander, McCrystal, who ran counter terror in Iraq during the surge, is wrong.

And most importantly
3. Since he's calling for no surge, he should also be calling for an immediate beginning of a withdrawal so as not to spend US/NATO blood and treasure on a cause that won't be 100% supported under his thinking. As should the President if he decides no more troops. Powell is NOT doing so, and that's grossly irresponsible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top